on the trail
columns
- Why Kerry Lost
He was good. Bush was better.
Chris Suellentrop
posted Nov. 3, 2004 - The Bush Victory Party
Plus, poetic justice for the new Congress.
Bryan Curtis
posted Nov. 3, 2004 - Blame the Electoral College
Kerry will lose, but he shouldn't be asked to quit before the game is over.
Chris Suellentrop
posted Nov. 3, 2004 - Blame Nader
The undecideds broke for the other challenger.
Chris Suellentrop
posted Nov. 3, 2004 - Lockhart Ranks the States
He predicts victory in New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Chris Suellentrop
posted Nov. 2, 2004 - Search for more on the trail articles
- Subscribe to the on the trail RSS feed
- View our complete on the trail archive
Landslide KerryThe mystifying appeal of the Massachusetts senator.
By Chris SuellentropPosted Monday, Jan. 26, 2004, at 3:48 PM ET

HAMPTON, N.H.—As Kerrymania sweeps the Granite State, the latest Zogby Poll notwithstanding, I'm still scratching my head over the phenomenon. Politics is full of truisms, one of which is that voters never elect a résumé, and another is that they don't vote strategically. But in John Kerry's case, voters appear to be doing both. They've decided, whether he's their favorite candidate or not, that he's the Democrat with the CV to go up against President Bush in November.
A third political truism—that negative campaigning hurts both the attacker and the attacked—helped explain the results of the Iowa caucuses, as voters ran away from the Dean-Gephardt slugfest and toward Kerry and John Edwards and, to a lesser extent here in New Hampshire, Wesley Clark. But I'm straining for an iron law of politics that explains how Kerry went from presumptive embarrassment to presumptive nominee in less than a month (though the race isn't over by a long shot). He's not the best or most skilled speaker in the race. He hasn't raised the most money. He wasn't leading in the national polls on Jan. 1.
Kerry is the Einstein of this race, upending the known Newtonian laws and replacing them with new ones. Perhaps the candidate who uses the most superlatives is now guaranteed victory. Kerry loves two expressions: "in all my time in public life" and "in the modern history of the country." For example, to take a Kerry favorite, President Bush has conducted "the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of the country." Similarly, Kerry said Sunday in Nashua, "This is the most antiscience administration in the modern history of the country." Or, during this month's National Public radio debate, "We're witnessing the greatest period of crony capitalism in the modern history of the country."
"Never in all my time in public life have I seen the workplace so unfair," is another Kerry favorite on the stump. Or, here's Kerry last week on the PBS NewsHour: "This is the most say-one-thing do-another administration I've seen in all my time in public life." In last week's debate, it was, "This is the worst environmental administration that I've ever seen in all my time in public life." At a Friday event in Manchester, Kerry declared that the Republican campaign against former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland (who's been campaigning with Kerry) was "the most craven moment I have seen in American politics." Presumably it broke the record held by a 1996 William Weld ad that Kerry then called "the most duplicitous and brazen distortion I've ever seen."
Or perhaps the candidate who receives the worst introduction speech of the campaign wins. At that Friday event in Manchester, Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced Kerry with a long, rambling speech that included the word "Chinaman." As Hollings was explaining that "50 percent of the furniture in this country comes from China," a shockingly loud pop crackled through the speakers and startled most people in the room. "Some Chinaman got mad at that," Hollings said to laughter. (Later, when more noises popped through the speakers, Kerry politically corrected the joke to, "This Chinese guy is still around.") Hollings also declared that Dick Cheney "is the Jesse Jackson of the Republican Party. He wants it all, his time has come!" A few people applauded when Hollings said he was about to finish.
Or perhaps the spoils go to the candidate who has the most difficulty reading his crowd. In Manchester, Kerry gave a touching speech about the importance of veterans and of "keeping faith with those who wore the uniform." As soon as it was over, a woman stood up and said, I'm not a veteran. What are you going to do for the average person? At a firehouse in Hampton yesterday, a man told Kerry that he thinks it's unfair that people say a New Englander can't connect with people from varying backgrounds. And to prove that you can do it, he says, explain the importance of the icon on my hat. Kerry is mystified. "The Latin? The Ten?" he asks. Malcolm X, the man explains.
I don't want to overstate Kerry's flaws. He's not Al Gore. He comes across as good-humored, decent, and likable rather than phony. And he doesn't pander mindlessly on every subject. On offshore job losses, "The solution is not to sit there and pretend that you can stop every job from going overseas," he says in Hampton. On the subject of religion, he believes that presidents should "recognize the diversity of faiths and even of agnosticism and atheism," and he takes the politically risky stance of admitting to a "questioning, agnostic stage" after his experience in Vietnam.
But Kerry also seems to keep a little intellectual distance from his public persona, unlike Dean or Edwards, who are pretty much "method politicians." The goofy grin that Kerry invariably breaks out at the end of his stump speech communicates the idea that he thinks this is a little, well, goofy. In a sense, that might be one more reason to like him, but it doesn't get me any closer to explaining his success. Going after Dean on taxes seems to be working—"I'm going to protect the middle class. I'm not touching your child care credit, like some candidates. I'm not going to put back in place the marriage penalty. I'm not going to take away your 10 percent bracket and raise it immediately to 15 percent, as some candidates are," Kerry says—but Democrats aren't supposed to vote on tax cuts in a primary. Military experience is part of it, too, but that brings me back to the résumé truism.
I'm left with one answer: He's taller.
Remarks from the Fray:
Like Chris, I find Kerry to be a strange choice to be popular. He looks like who a casting director would choose to play a rich, New Englander who wants to sell and tear down a toy store to build a poultry processing plant. During his speeches, he looks as if he's battling arthritis. And, he talks like a math professor addressing cheerleaders.
The reason, however, I think he's popular is because there isn't an ideal candidate. That is, it's not Kerry's popularity that may explain why he's at the top of the polls; it may be because the other candidates are less qualified than Kerry.
Chris and I, more specifically, aren't judging Kerry against the other candidates (or at least I'm not) we're judging him against what we think an ideal candidate should be: a smooth politician who has the necessary experience to fight against the Dark Side. It may be that Kerry has war experience, and Edwards doesn't, and that he doesn't appear to be a nervous volunteer in a medical experiment, as Dean and Clark give the impression on television, and that he wouldn't be considered too progressive for an ethnically homogenous, socialist ice palace, such as Kucinich.
It could be that he's competent enough on enough qualities, with enough of the right characteristics, to be better than the other candidates. He might be the winner by exclusion.
--AdamMorgan
(To reply, click here)
Suellentrop lists a half dozen or more instances of Kerry using superlatives as though this is somehow germane to something. Why not address the truth of his comments? The ones that relate to his personal experiences are unarguable, and the ones that relate to the depredations of the Bush administration are at the very least defensible (if not obvious!).
It's incredible the standards to which these Democratic candidates are held, as compared to Bush, who, when he was running and debating was considered to have had a successful day if he didn't drool on his chin in public.
--Long_Tom
(To reply, click here)
(1/27)
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Can't Go Wrong With A Cheeseburger, Area Man Reports
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:00:21 -0400 - Courageous E-mail To Boss In Drafts Folder Since December
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:05 -0400 - Novak Hits Pedestrian With Corvette
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:00:45 -0400 - » More from the Onion
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
- Froomkin: How to Get Away With Torture
- Milbank: (Not an) Impeachment Hearing
- Achenblog: My Bias Against Media Bias
- Krauthammer: Maliki Votes for Obama
- Today's Headlines
- Poll: Hispanic Voters Back Obama by Wide Margins
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:04:26 GMT - Opinion: Germans See Themselves in Obama
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:52 GMT - How the Mosley Orgy Ruling Could Affect U.K. Media
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:34:59 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Over the Rainbow: Angie and Jo
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:21:23 GMT - The New Tavis Smiley, Beware!
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:27:58 GMT - Go for the Bronze
Fri, 25 July 2008 4:18:27 GMT - » More from The Root

on the trail









